Just a little reminder as to how numbers do matter: The USAF and US Navy outnumbered the Vietnamese MiG force over Vietnam. That is how the expensive F-4 Phantom managed to get a superior kill ratio over the MiG-17 and MiG-21. Pierre Sprey was right about strength of numbers making a difference. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the F-22 is not stealthy and it's not the only airplane that can supercruise (Rafale, Flanker and Typhoon can all do that AND detect the Raptor via IRST). US taxpayers are getting ripped off. Prove me wrong.

Posted by: llflllfl at May 27, 2008 06:43 AM

The USAF should pit the F-22 against the RAF Eurofighter and the French Rafale in the next Red Flag exercise. Then we'll know the truth as to how good the Raptor really is.

Posted by: llflllfl at May 27, 2008 06:08 AM

The only way to know for sure if the Raptor really is the best fighter money can buy is to send it up against a real opponent like the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Dassault Rafale. Perhaps we'll know the truth in a Red Flag exercise when the RAF and the French air force bring their Typhoons and Rafales respectively for a showdown with the USAF.

Only then will we know for sure if the Raptor is all that it is hyped up to be.

Posted by: name@company.com at May 27, 2008 06:02 AM

"DarthAmerica,

Your lack of understanding of the real world is truly astonishing..."

Let me show you "The Real World" pfcem:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3865&page=7

OK now you asked me to show you the 90%...

"Prove that a fleet of 187 F-22's would "overwhelm quantitatively and qualitatively 90% of our potential advesaries". Beside, if you don't prepare for that other 10% you are NOT preparing properly." ---pfcem

...as you can see I was being conservative when I said 90%. Still a nonbeliever? Go ahead and compile a list of fighter strengths of these countries. The 187 Raptors are for dealing with the remaining 10%. A book I encourage you to read is called The Pentagon's New Map by Thomas Barnett. It will help cure you of the nonsense that surrounds our priorities and where we should be focusing our efforts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon's_New_Map

Now I have actually see this with my own eyes. What I'm telling you isn't what I think, it's what I've lived and experienced. The changes in thinking are as fundamental as accepting that Carriers were the new capital ships of the high seas during WW II rather than Battleships. That is the magnitude of the error you make when you think that more F-22s is the most urgent need we face and that 187 plus the other plans the USAF has aren't enough to deal with neer peer threats.

The F-22 fleet and other assets as planned would absolutely cut to pieces an opposing air force in anywhere between 1 to 14 days depending on who we are fighting. Thats it. But that doesn't mean the war would be won just because we control the sky. MANY OTHER issues remain and require funding that more F-22's would take away from. A balance has to be made. We learned this the hard way in Operation Desert Storm. We learned it again in Somalia. We again went through this harsh cruel lesson in Kosovo. We continued to learn it in the 1990's over the no fly zones. We learned it in New York and Washington on 9/11. Then we imposed that same lesson on ourselves in OIF and OEF. Our force needs to be organized to deal with the real world threats and not these fantasy land Tom Clancy wars. BTW that isnt a hit on Clancy who I respect as an author. Just that when I hear OFFICIALLY that a war is possible air superiority is usually the least of our concerns.

I've given you a summary of things as they are. You should read up and get familiar. Then you will know why the USAF was told to fly with 187 Raptors and that in 2010 a decision would be made on more IF they are necessary.

Oh and you can also look into another area which I can expand on if necessary. Look at the Pacific region and the following technologies/developments...

Basing rights and locations

Submarines

UAVs

Ballistic Missiles

Amphibious Assault Ships(China lags far behind other asian nations BTW)

South Korean Military Industrial Complex

Space War

Nuclear Weapons

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 19, 2008 12:28 AM

"DarthAmerica,

Your lack of understanding of the real world is truly astonishing..."

Let me show you "The Real World" pfcem:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3865&page=7

OK now you asked me to show you the 90%...

"Prove that a fleet of 187 F-22's would "overwhelm quantitatively and qualitatively 90% of our potential advesaries". Beside, if you don't prepare for that other 10% you are NOT preparing properly." ---pfcem

...as you can see I was being conservative when I said 90%. Still a nonbeliever? Go ahead and compile a list of fighter strengths of these countries. The 187 Raptors are for dealing with the remaining 10%. A book I encourage you to read is called The Pentagon's New Map by Thomas Barnett. It will help cure you of the nonsense that surrounds our priorities and where we should be focusing our efforts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon's_New_Map

Now I have actually see this with my own eyes. What I'm telling you isn't what I think, it's what I've lived and experienced. The changes in thinking are as fundamental as accepting that Carriers were the new capital ships of the high seas during WW II rather than Battleships. That is the magnitude of the error you make when you think that more F-22s is the most urgent need we face and that 187 plus the other plans the USAF has aren't enough to deal with neer peer threats.

The F-22 fleet and other assets as planned would absolutely cut to pieces an opposing air force in anywhere between 1 to 14 days depending on who we are fighting. Thats it. But that doesn't mean the war would be won just because we control the sky. MANY OTHER issues remain and require funding that more F-22's would take away from. A balance has to be made. We learned this the hard way in Operation Desert Storm. We learned it again in Somalia. We again went through this harsh cruel lesson in Kosovo. We continued to learn it in the 1990's over the no fly zones. We learned it in New York and Washington on 9/11. Then we imposed that same lesson on ourselves in OIF and OEF. Our force needs to be organized to deal with the real world threats and not these fantasy land Tom Clancy wars. BTW that isnt a hit on Clancy who I respect as an author. Just that when I hear OFFICIALLY that a war is possible air superiority is usually the least of our concerns.

I've given you a summary of things as they are. You should read up and get familiar. Then you will know why the USAF was told to fly with 187 Raptors and that in 2010 a decision would be made on more IF they are necessary.

Oh and you can also look into another area which I can expand on if necessary. Look at the Pacific region and the following technologies/developments...

Submarines

UAVs

Ballistic Missiles

Amphibious Assault Ships(China lags far behind other asian nations BTW)

South Korean Military Industrial Complex

Space War

Nuclear Weapons

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 19, 2008 12:25 AM

Fanboy net surfer vs real live Warfighter in a debate about fighting wars. Who is most likely not to understand? The post speak for themselves. Sorry if I bursted your bubble but I only deal in cold hard fact. Thats because I'm eyewitness to and/or participant in these things that end up on websites in discussion forums. I try to present an informed first person opinion/analysis because all too often these stories are presented way out of context. It's like when fighter plane enthusiast find out that air combat isn't like what they saw in top gun. Or when people see an M4 with all these rail attached gadgets in a gun magazine and think its cool without realizing that it's usually just for show. It's like you just found out santa claus isn't real all over again. If you don't like having reality checks, stop talking to people who do this for real or try at least to support your post with evidence. Do you think it is a coincidence that I can point you to a factual link that contradicts every point you tried to make?

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 18, 2008 11:02 PM

DarthAmerica,

Your lack of understanding of the real world is truly astonishing...

Posted by: pfcem at March 18, 2008 06:53 PM

"DarthAmerica,

Did I say anything about how realistic it was (it IS realistic by the way, not neccessaryily highly propable but possible)?" ---pfcem

No it's not and the anybody with even a hint of reason or military knowledge will tell you that.

"Did you even read what I posted. My scenario SAYS that the F-35 knocks the Typhoon & Rafale "out of the market" so they go to another market (a market not all that friendly to the US). You think that Europe is going to just give up & let the US & Russia become the ONLY suppliers of fighter to the ENTIRE world..."

Can you read? The F-35, F/A-18E/F and F-15E HAVE ALREADY knocked Typhoon and Rafale out of the high end export market because they are superior and the F-16 still dominates the lower tier customers who prefer western aircraft. Nations not friendly to the USA are typically not on good terms with Europe either because...

a. we are allies

b. they are already in the Russian or Chinese sphere of influence

...not to mention that they cannot afford Typhoon and Rafale which cost about as much as the F-35 or more!

"You are dreaming if you think that Russia could not or would not increase Flanker production if the market supported/required it."

You are the one dreaming. Russian military exports are a huge part of their economy and customers are already unhappy with delivery schedules. THEY ARE CURRENTLY UNABLE TO produce enough to meet demand. Also, the advanced flankers fanboys like to offer up in these debates such as the Su-35 arent even in operational service. The vast majority of others cannot even fire an active radar guided missile. Your misunderstanding of this subject matter is staggering. Get it into your skull that China cannot manufacture flankers independently and only produce J-11Bs at the rate of 17 per year. Russian factories only put out 30 to 40 annually. It would take very obvious increases in Russian industrial capacity to do what you think is possible. So obvious that it would be called a "build up" or "arms race" such that there would be time and justification for our response. Also, late model advanced Flankers use a like the one the Indian fly use a lot of western components in their avionics so increases in production would certainly draw attention well before assembly even begins

"F-15Es, F-35s & F-16 are not air superiority fighters - not the the USAF anyway. Good luck pulling enough of them away from what that WILL be doing to use them as air superiority fighters...All those F-35s are replacing A-10s, F-16s, F/A-18C/Ds, AV-8B - NOT F-15C/Ds."

No, they are MULTIROLE FIGHTERS and one of the missions they can be tasked to do is air superiority. God Damn man you don't even understand the roles! Also, the F-35 will not be replacing A-10s in 2020...

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/08/29/216249/us-air-force-may-extend-fairchild-a-10-life-beyond-2028.html

Also, the DoD IS looking at using F-35A's to take over for retired F-15Cs.

"We can't even get ONE full squadron of F-22s for each AEF with 187 and you want pull some BS that we will be able to somehow get all (half is not even realistic) F-22's in inventory to any specific conflict. Join the real world man!"

You idiot I never said send all the F-22s to anyplace. Would you freakin take a look at the sizes of other airforces

"Sorry, but I have friends & family in the USAF - I have a pretty fair idea how bad the F-15C/D maintenance is (& what the trends over the past decade make it clear how much worse it will get over the next decade)...Like I said, even IF it is physically possible to keep a useful number of F-15C/D combat worthy until 2020 (much less any time beyond that) it will likely become economically unrealistic (politically incorrect) to do so."

The USAF is upgrading and keeping at least 178 F-15C/D's that it has already identified by tail number and a further 224 F-15Es all with plenty of life for service well into the 2020's and is putting the latest technologies into them...

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Raytheon_To_Supply_16_AESA_Radars_To_Boeing_For_USAF_And_Air_National_Guard_F_15Cs_999.html

...Can you count to 635? Thats how many F-22's, F-15E's, and F-15C/D's the USAF will have for airsuperiorty assuming that after 2010's review 20 more aren't built.

"Prove that a fleet of 187 F-22's would "overwhelm quantitatively and qualitatively 90% of our potential advesaries". Beside, if you don't prepare for that other 10% you are NOT preparing properly."

You simple minded non understanding...Look. Why don't you do research rather than making assertions to people who know what they are talking about? I said overwhelm not outnumber. Do you know the difference? 48 Raptors will not outnumber the PLAAFs J-11B force which numbers about 100. But the F-22's capabilities would definately overwhelm them. Especially in conjuction with other assets.

187 Raptors would not have to all deploy anywhere to for the USAF to outnumber a threat airforce. I already told you that only PRC and Russia even have more dedicated air superiority fighters. Counting potential threats only and not hypothetical nonsense, show me an airforce that could put up more than 2 squadrons worth of air superiority fighters to face the U.S. Military. Also, only a person with a novice understanding compares advesaries on a platform to platform basis. Even so the USAF still has more fighters!

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 18, 2008 02:22 AM

DarthAmerica,

Did I say anything about how realistic it was (it IS realistic by the way, not neccessaryily highly propable but possible)?

Did you even read what I posted. My scenario SAYS that the F-35 knocks the Typhoon & Rafale "out of the market" so they go to another market (a market not all that friendly to the US). You think that Europe is going to just give up & let the US & Russia become the ONLY suppliers of fighter to the ENTIRE world...

You are dreaming if you think that Russia could not or would not increase Flanker production if the market supported/required it.

F-15Es, F-35s & F-16 are not air superiority fighters - not the the USAF anyway. Good luck pulling enough of them away from what that WILL be doing to use them as air superiority fighters...All those F-35s are replacing A-10s, F-16s, F/A-18C/Ds, AV-8B - NOT F-15C/Ds.

We can't even get ONE full squadron of F-22s for each AEF with 187 and you want pull some BS that we will be able to somehow get all (half is not even realistic) F-22's in inventory to any specific conflict. Join the real world man!

Sorry, but I have friends & family in the USAF - I have a pretty fair idea how bad the F-15C/D maintenance is (& what the trends over the past decade make it clear how much worse it will get over the next decade)...Like I said, even IF it is physically possible to keep a useful number of F-15C/D combat worthy until 2020 (much less any time beyond that) it will likely become economically unrealistic (politically incorrect) to do so.

Prove that a fleet of 187 F-22's would "overwhelm quantitatively and qualitatively 90% of our potential advesaries". Beside, if you don't prepare for that other 10% you are NOT preparing properly.

Posted by: pfcem at March 17, 2008 03:31 PM

One more little factoid I'd like to through into the debate just for comparison sake. The USA has a history of outproducing our enemies with superior warplanes since WW II. Not much has changed...

(Scroll Halfway Down)
http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/ANNEX%20A%20Revision_April%202007.pdf

...So people arguing the numbers are on really thin ice based on the data which is supported by evidence.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 17, 2008 01:39 PM

Just a little addendum to the numbers of J-11B's produced by China and Su-27s from Russia. Chinese J-11B production is about 15 to 20 annually and they are the only fighters that can fire the PL-12 active guided missiles. The remaining imported Su-27s are still limited to semi-active missiles IIRC. Russia makes about 30 to 40 Su-27s annually. So these post that constantly cite that we are going to face hoards of Su-27s and clones are not very realistic. Especially if the enemy is not the Russian Airforce or PLAAF due small numbers ordered by other air forces.

Using Venezuela as an example...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_Air_Force

...The USAF could bring F-4s out of retirement or lease German F-4Fs and still outnumber them(VAF) by 4 to 1. Heck, a single Ohio class SSGN could individually target every fighter in the VAF on the ground with it's own pair of TLAMs and still have a few missiles left over!

Have a look at Su-27 users world wide...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-27#Production_and_users

No nations except Russia, China and India fly more than a wings worth of Flankers. Each year after 2011 until the 2030's the US Military will recieve more F-35s than the total number of Flankers in all of the rest of the world airforces with the three previously mentioned exceptions.

The fighter balance of power is clearly in the U.S. Military favor.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 17, 2008 01:34 PM

pfcem,

There is nothing even remotely realistic about that scenario. Especially with regard to profileration of late model fourth generation fighters. Typhoon and Rafale have been effectively priced out of the market while F-15s, F-35s and F/A-18Fs have filled the niche where the ECD platforms would have had opportunities for sales...

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/dassault-discusses-global-fighter-market-to-2015-0710/

Even the Rafale cannot sell to a customer with F-16s still being offered. Look at Morrocco...

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/moroccos-air-force-reloads-04469/

Also, look at the procurement schedule for the F-35. Look at it as a business man. Where are Typhoons and Rafales going to get into the fighter market?

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_F-35A_AA-1_Test_Flight_lg.jpg

Do you see the flags on the fusalage? Those nations aren't going to be exporting Typhoons anywhere.

You also seem to be under the impression the Su-27s are readily available from Russia. That simply is not true. Russia is struggling to satisfy currently ordered fighters and their own airforce and the kind of advanced variant you described would take over a decader to enter operational testing optimistically. The only eception is China who manufactures the J-11 under liscense.

Even so, Su-27/J-11 production is around 50 a year. Thats nowhere near the numbers the F-35 will be putting out as you can clearly see in the link below.

The USAF will also still have modernized F-15Es numbering over 200 and by 2020 the USA will have approximately 1200 F-35s as you can see here...

http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/ANNEX%20A%20Revision_April%202007.pdf

...in addition to almost 500 USN F/A-18E/F and some of the 1200+ F-16s still flying.

This is a fighter fleet of WELL OVER 2000 fighters NOT COUNTING F-15C/Ds. And that assuming the very unrealistic suggestion that the F-15C/D would fall victim to the maintenance issues you mentioned.

Even if the fighters you mentioned were proliferated. Heck. lets suppose the PAK-FA is fully the equivilent of the F-35 and exported widely th hostil nations. Most threat nations would not even operate more than 2 to 4 squadrons of advanced fighters anyway. Our 187 F-22s would overwhelm quantitatively and qualitatively 90% of our potential advesaries even counting for the fact that not all the F-22's would be combat coded.

This is why I use data when I make my points. It avoids any ambiguity and defines the true nature of the problem so that solutions are obvious. Objectively, the USAF is in a very inviable position and does not more F-22s. I think this should make sense to most reasonable people.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 17, 2008 12:45 PM

DarthAmerica,

OK here is your scenario (even as I have said many times the need for 381 F-22's IS NOT based on any specific scenario).

It 2020 & all F-15C/Ds have been take permanently retired form US service (including the Air National Guard). The wet dreams of those who thought they would last until 2025-2030 proved wildly optimistic & they were awaken when the F-15C/Ds went the way of the F-14, too time-consuming & expensive to maintain. This after a decade of the entire fleet being grounded for months on end every couple of years - each time dozens never return to flight status placing an even greater strain on those that do until barely 100 remained (split between the USAF & the Air National Guard). Every nation which in 2008 had ordered (or was considering ordering) Flankers has recieved them. As tensions around the world continued to strain throughout the 2010', many had placed additional orders for & recieved even more advanced Flankers (Flankers who's avionics are roughly equal to that of the F-15SG & whos "stealth" rivals that of the F/A-18E/F Block II). In addition to that, the F-35 so dominates the export market that Eurofighter decides that in order to stay in business so as to be able to support existing Eurofighter fleets it has to begin offering the Typhoon to nations which otherwise would not be considered. This in tern promts France to slash the price on the Rafale in order that it can do the same.

End result: In addition to ever worsening relations between the US and Russia & China, HUNDREDS of Flankers, Typhoons & Rafales proliferate around the world to nation NOT friendly the the US and the US with no F-15C/Ds to pick up the slack for not having enough F-22s.

Posted by: pfcem at March 16, 2008 05:22 PM

"THAT is the problem, there are far to many people like you who are only looking at today & not the future."---pfcem

People like me? You mean people actively involved in national defense who are qualified to do threat analysis? OK well when you describe to me a scenario where more Raptors are needed I'll be the first to agree and even tell you how likely it is. Thus far, you haven't. When I studied the threat matrix over the life cycle of the F-22. We aren't likely to see a serious competitor for 10-15 years and even then only in very limited numbers and those are optimistic estimates.

Look at how much more advanced the F-22 is. Consider the amount of time it took for the F-22 to reach IOC from the time the RFP was issued. Consider also that the F-22 was developed during a time when there was an actual need(USSR) with plenty of funding. We are talking 2020ish before we will even see the prototypes. By that time, the F-22 replacement technologies will likely be well into development or even operational as black programs. Technology is changing so fast that we can't afford to get fixed on a particular platform, technology or even CONOPS without a clear need otherwise we made have an force structure that is completely irrelevant to the requirements no matter how advanced it is. The USAF AFTFP absolutely states that.

Try to get over the personal love you have for the F-22 and take an objective view. It's simply a tool. We can build more or better tools as required. Also, don't be fooled by those who suggest that if production shuts down, then the F-22 is lost forever. I laugh everytime I read something like that. Thats the OLDEST trick in the book.

"The U.S. Air Force Transformation Flight Plan (AFTFP), doesn't do anything to indicate that the USAF will be able to meet its worldwide oblications in the decades to come with fewer than 381 F-22s..." ---pfcem

Nor does it say that there is a need for 381 F-22's. It isn't a platform specific document. You and others are too fixated on platforms rather than the system as a whole. The F-22 is a great fighter. It has relevance and will be used where necessary to ensure U.S. Air Superiority. Without sudden and drastic changes to the threats we face we don't need more.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 16, 2008 04:25 AM

DarthAmerica,

NOBODY (at least nobody I know of) IS SAYING WE NEED 381 F-22s NOW!!!

But someday we will. And unless you are willing to pay MORE for F-22s later, the only way we are going to ever get the 381 F-22s we WILL eventually need is to keep the production line open.

THAT is the problem, there are far to many people like you who are only looking at today & not the future.

The U.S. Air Force Transformation Flight Plan (AFTFP), doesn't do anything to indicate that the USAF will be able to meet its worldwide oblications in the decades to come with fewer than 381 F-22s...

Posted by: pfcem at March 15, 2008 06:52 PM

"Don't confuse the number the DOD has/had agreed to fund with the number the USAF needs"

Don't confuse the fact that the DoD, which the USAF is part of, decides what the USAF needs.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 14, 2008 08:17 PM

pfcem,

Sorry but I have seen the facts for myself. You are incorrect. Ultimately, people more like me have the prevailing view on the F-22. You can feel free to disagree all you want but it doesnt change the fact that the DoD doesn't feel that it needs more F-22s right not and will take another look at the issue in the future at which time more F-22s MAY come. For now that isnt going to happen. Your justification is weak and cannot stand up to the scrutiny of my more reasoned analysis which is supported by real world events and data. One more thing...

"It is true that the 381 number is based on the previous 2MRC (2 Nearly Simultaneous Major Regional Conflict) model (no "Soviet" like threat levels) which has now been replaced by the "1-4-2-1" model which could in fact require MORE F-22s..."

If you have read the AFTFP you will see the flaw in your logic and why the USAF is going to be just fine.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 14, 2008 08:11 PM

DarthAmerica,

Don't confuse the number the DOD has/had agreed to fund with the number the USAF needs. The number prior to 381 was 442, the 339 number is the what DOD agreed to fund (at the time) based on projected budgets & had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with how many ANYBODY thought were needed. Same for the 183 number - it is based SOLELY on the number that could/would be funded through the current administration & has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with how many ANYBODY thought were needed. Unfortunately there are enough ignorant people out there who don't realize the difference & mistakenly think that the number funded is in any way relavant to how many are actually needed.

It is true that the 381 number is based on the previous 2MRC (2 Nearly Simultaneous Major Regional Conflict) model (no "Soviet" like threat levels) which has now been replaced by the "1-4-2-1" model which could in fact require MORE F-22s...

And stop with the BS that there has to be (or is or ever was) any specific threat or threat level as THE FACTOR in how many F-22s are needed because it simply is not true. It IS (& has been) based on how many are needed for the USAF to to fulfill its obligations.

Who said anything about new numbers would were out our airforce too much? If anything the current numbers have not yet taken into account the higher ops levels in recent years.

Keep in mind that you have to commit to procurement at least 2 years in advance in order for all of the parts/pieces et cetera to be ordered in time for final assmebly...

Posted by: pfcem at March 14, 2008 05:05 PM

"The USAF has already justified its need for a MINIMUM of 381 F-22s. It is those who claim a smaller number will do who have yet to justify their number."---pfcem

You keep saying that but it is false. The USAF FAILED to justify the need for 381 Raptors to the people it matters to so they get 183-187 for now. If you go back and research the 381 Raptor number. You will find where that number used to be 339 and that number was suggested so that the USAF could simultaneously fight two major regional wars with F-22s present in strength for both.

This at a time where "Soviet" like threat levels were in the minds of defense planners. We now know such a conflict is unlikely with a near pear and 339 Raptors are not a priority since no threat exist to justify them.

People keep homing in on flight hours and saying that the new numbers would were out our airforce too much. The only problem there is people are assuming the OP TEMPO will not adjust which it has. Because of the nature of the threat, we won't have to send Raptors to every conflict.

Keep in mind though that the F-22 line is still open through 2011. The USAF will probably get a few more Raptors at that time.

In any case, the DoD has much higher priorities and the budget is a reflection of that fact.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 14, 2008 05:10 AM

DarthAmerica,

True, F-15C/Ds are not in as bad a shape as some think &/or would have you believe BUT it is what shape they will be in from 2015-2025 that matters.

While the F-15C/Ds are more than likely OK for another half-full decade, after that you run into SERIUS problems. And reduced numbers of F-15C/Ds doesn't help anything unless those F-15C/Ds are replaced by something (otherwise it is actually worse since having fewer airframes means that the airframes you have run up flight hours faster).

Sorry but the F-35s will be replacing F-16s & A-10's for the USAF (plus F/A-18A-D for the USN & USMC plus AV-8B for the USMC plus several foreign partners). There is NO WAY we will procure enough of them fast enough to replace F-15s as well...Besides, as good as the F-35 will be in air-to-air combat it is a poor substitute for the F-22 (which the USAF can afford) for air dominance. Saying we should procure more F-35s instead of F-22s is akin to saying we should have stopped procuring F-15s when we started procuring F-16s.

The USAF has already justified its need for a MINIMUM of 381 F-22s. It is those who claim a smaller number will do who have yet to justify their number.

Saying that we don't need more F-22s beyond those already funded is akin to saying that we should have stopped procuring F-15s in 1980 (about half way though its eventual production run - not including the F-15E & later varients). Just imagine how bad a shape we would be in now if that had happened...That is how bad a shape we WILL be in ~2030 if we don't continue procuring more F-22's!

And saying that we should procure "advanced" F-15s instead of F-22s is akin to saying we should have procured "advanced" F-4 Phantons in 1980 instead of continuing to procure F-15s. Not as bad as not procuring anything at all but just think if the USAF's primary air-superiority fighter (F-22's being a rarity & all F-15A/Bs being long gone) today & for the next decade or two were "advanced" (as in F-15C/D avionics but not flight performance) F-4 Phantons...

The requirement for 381 F-22's is not 381 F-22's TODAY but by ~2025 (when even the "Golden Eagles" will no longer be combat worthy).

Posted by: pfcem at March 14, 2008 02:21 AM

The F-15C's are not in as bad of a shape as some would lead you to belive. In reduced numbers, they have enough life left to fly into the next decade or so. Also, by the time the problems you brought up actually become a real issue. F-35s will be in full production and operational. That means we will have about 200 or so F-22s plus the F-35 and F-15E fleets to deal with these issues.

Also, 2010 is right around the corner. If by that time data suggest that the F-15s are too stressed to do the job. The DoD can reevaluate then and make a decision if it's even worth replacing them. If it is, then real analysis of the pro's and cons of which platform should be procured. The choices are newer advanced F-15s which are still in production and roughly equivilent to F/A-18Es overall. F-35s which will be the least expensive and most flexible option. Or More F-22's if that's necessary. This is why the funding to close the F-22 line was used elsewhere so we would have this option.

The F-22 is a kick ass fighter and I would love to see more of them. But only if there is a justifiable need considering the DoD has a lot of high priority systems in the pipeline and air superiority fighters is not an area where we face significant challenges.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 13, 2008 11:33 PM

DarthAmerica,

Yes we have "plenty" of F-15Cs NOW that are perfectly capable of dealing with many threats. But they are in fact falling out of the sky & will continue to fall out of the sky. Not all of them but some every year & each time ONE does most/all of the fleet gets grounded for weeks or months while the cause of the loss is determined & checks (& fixes) are made to the other aircraft to "ensure" they are not lost to the same cause.

By 2010 it is enstimated that all (or very nearly all) F-15C/Ds will have over 8,000 flight hours on them (that is double what they were intended to have before being retired). Now in the wet dreams of some people we are suppose to by somehow extending their lives to 12,000 or even 16,000 flight hours (that is 3-4 times as many as were originally intended to have) be able to keep 187 "Golden Eagles" flying into the 2020's. Even if by some miracle of engineering we are able to actually do that, what are you going to do beyond 2020-2025 when even they become IMPOSSIBLE to keep in combat-caable condition? THAT is why we need 381 F-22's. Not because we need 381 NOW (we have F-15C/Ds to take up the slack) but because by even the most overoptimistic expectations by ~2025 we won't have enough F-15C/Ds.

And guess what, continued production of F-22s will lessen the strain on the F-15C/D fleet so that they may more realistically make it to ~2025 when they would be completely phased out of service & replaced by the 381 F-22s the USAF needs to do its job day-to-day.

Posted by: pfcem at March 13, 2008 08:10 PM

DC2,

Are you incapable of reading what is posted by others?

I said:
"
The true "fly-away" cost of the F-16I & F-16E are nearly impossible to accurately quote because they were purchased as part of a foreign arms deal but by taking the amount paid divided by the mumber paid for..."

F-16I: ~$70 million
F-16E/F: ~$80 million
"

I guarantee you those numbers are MUCH more accurate than your BS $27 million. Personally, based on all the information I have seen the true "fly-away" cost of the F-16I & F-16E/F are PROBABLY around ~80% of the numbers above but as I said the true "fly-away" cost of the F-16I & F-16E are nearly impossible to accurately quote.

Posted by: pfcem at March 13, 2008 07:53 PM

"pfcem,

The foreign military purchases also included spare parts and other equipment. Therefore, the number is not accurate by simply dividing the number of aircraft by the total contract cost. Also, I believe the UAE contract also included R&D money for the addtional system that were installed (AESA, IRST, etc.), but I don't know if the overall purchase price you are using includes that amount."

The UAE funded the development separately. As I told you, your numbers were wrong and the F-16E is about 80 million dollars give or take a few mil. That number is far more accurate that your suggestion of 27 million just based on the avionics and the fact that you don't buy a combat jet and simply fly it away trouble free price paid. You keep paying over the life of the program, usually ~30 years. Moreover, since a F-35 can do missions solo and in fewer numbers without the overhead legacy platforms need to conduct operations you save even more. It's amazing that people beat up the F-35 on cost without even realizing it has a fixed priced maintenance contract.

"Honestly, I have never found a site that was completely accurate with regards to purchase prices at flyaway costs. Everyone wants to slant it one way or the other.

DC2"

So then why the ferk did you bring it up? Nevermind the fact that you weren't even in the ball park on price.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 13, 2008 03:53 AM

"Last time I checked, the Army hasn't equipped Humvees with WiFi access. War doesn't change, never has, and only will once robots are fighting for us. Otherwise, it still takes a soldier aiming something (gun, laser designator, etc) to kill an insurgent."

War doesn't change? Maybe when you have served through one or more of them you will see the difference. Also, you would be surprised to know what kind of comms Humvees have. Here is a hint, it ain't just FM and it ain't limited to LOS. Also, EVERY FOB has WiFi, DSL and cell service.

Also, just FYI, robots do kill for us now just to let you know. What rock have you been hiding under where you don't know robots regularly kill people and F-16E's cost 27 million...lol. Slap yourself.

"Grow up? I'm a man pal, trust me. Now stop being a snot nosed brat and stick to facts."

Yeah, grow up and stop being a jack a55. These topics on this post are what I do for a living. I've been doing it before a lot of adults here were in there teens. When I tell you something, it's usually a professional opinion based on years of experience. I don't make these things up just because.

If more Raptors were necessary, that would be in my interest because I personally don't want to have to walk around in an IBA and Kevlar for fear of air attack. Thankfully, that isn't the case. So I know that more Raptors should not be at the top of the priority list. What is though is when fighters can't stay on station long enough because of fuel and availability of tankers. KC program. Or trucks that aren't built to carry the burden of their armor and are maintenance nightmares. MRAP. Or knowing another deployment is just around the corner because the Army isn't big enough to allow units much time to reconsolidate and reorganize. Or knowing that if we are attacked by another regional power that attack will come via ballistic missile. Missile Defense. Or if I need to see the other side of a bridge, did the DoD fund the right programs to provide the bandwidth for video feeds and comms. FCS. Or when I was stuck in a bad Iraqi neighborhood trying to control a mob, is there a unit with strykers around that can help. Thankfully there were. These are the types of programs that require immediate attention. Not, more F-22's.

Now as I said, F-22 production will be possible through 2011 at least and probably longer. If more are needed then we have time to reevaluate. The USAF is looking out for itself and the interest of the fighter mafia. It did not surprise me to see some senior USAF officials crying for more Raptors. The DoD have the job of balancing the services needs and they are doing that. Don't fall for the USAF hype about Eagles falling apart. The USAF like al service branched, lies. Especially to get funding for pet programs. This is why an American president warned us all about the military industrial complex. This is why the Author of the Pentagons New Map says what he does. Try learning this stuff before jumping on the band wagon. You too pfcem. You see, the DoD agrees with my position and is holding back on Raptor procurement. So it is YOU and the USAF who needs to convince YOUR elected officials and the DoD of the need for more Raptors. That 381 Raptor fairy tale came to the light in the late 1990s based on the extremely unlikely scenario of a shooting war in two different regions against near peer competitors. Below if a quote form the AFTFP...

""First, true transformation is not the result of a one-time improvement, but of sustained
and determined effort across a broad range of areas. Each area has a starting and ending
point and is at a different stage of development, but is focused on contributing to and
improving the whole. The Flight Plan provides a “snapshot in time” of these areas.

Second, the Air Force believes that meaningful transformation requires integrating its
expanding capabilities with those of the other Services and non-military elements of
national power. Air Force transformation cannot occur in a vacuum.

Third, transformation is not just new “gee-whiz” technologies. It usually combines
technology with some or all of the following:
• Adapting existing capabilities and using them in new ways
• Changes in how the military is organized that increase its effectiveness
• Changes in military doctrine and concepts of operation, to include training, tactics,
techniques, and procedures that determine force deployment or determine the way
forces are led or interact with each other to produce improved effects.

Fourth, it may not be possible, necessary, or desirable to transform the entire US
military at once. Historically, transformations involve less than the entire force. Also,
attempting to transform the entire force at once may be risky if the assumptions about
the future threat turn out to be incorrect. The wrong type of force, totally incapable of
meeting actual threats, may be the result.

Fifth, transformation should not be achieved at the expense of conducting current vital
operations in support of the DoD Defense Strategy, maintaining adequate readiness and
infrastructure, conducting critical recapitalization, and attracting and retaining quality
personnel. There must be a careful balance between these requirements, which compete
for limited resources.""

...read and understand that.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 13, 2008 03:42 AM

pfcem,

Here is an IDF website for the F-16I. It indicates a unit price of $45M per aircraft. Again, I don't know what that number entails. Whether that is a full unit price or fly away cost.

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/f-16i/F-16I.html

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at March 12, 2008 06:45 PM

pfcem,

The foreign military purchases also included spare parts and other equipment. Therefore, the number is not accurate by simply dividing the number of aircraft by the total contract cost. Also, I believe the UAE contract also included R&D money for the addtional system that were installed (AESA, IRST, etc.), but I don't know if the overall purchase price you are using includes that amount.

Honestly, I have never found a site that was completely accurate with regards to purchase prices at flyaway costs. Everyone wants to slant it one way or the other.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at March 12, 2008 05:24 PM

DC2,

You are wrong about the cost of the F-16. You need to do more research into where the numbers came from & what they actually represent. For example how do you explain the F-16I costing SO much more than the others?

To save you A LOT of time, I will give you the answer.

F-16A/B in 1979: $14.6 million
F-16C/D in 1984: $18.8 million

The true "fly-away" cost of the F-16I & F-16E are nearly impossible to accurately quote because they were purchased as part of a foreign arms deal but by taking the amount paid divided by the mumber paid for...

F-16I: ~$70 million
F-16E/F: ~$80 million

Posted by: pfcem at March 12, 2008 05:17 PM

DarthAmerica,

I said "If you think the rest of the world is just going to sit still while age and fatigue continue to reduce the number of F-15Cs we can keep in the air, you are VERY MUCH uniformed & sadly mistaken."

I stand by that statement 100%.

Like I saud, current threats are not the problem. Future threats are.

And stop with the BS that I have to justify the requiremnet for 381 F-22. The USAF has already done that. Those who claim otherwise OTOH have not - so the ball is in their court to prove their number. You are obviously one of them so "If you cant do that then please don't waste my time with one-liner responses or unsupported assertions."

Posted by: pfcem at March 12, 2008 04:46 PM

DA,

Prove the cost isn't what I quoted. I provided my reference which you always claim must be provided. You have referenced Wiki in the past, so you must believe it is credible.

Again, you have quoted many times on this blog that nobody can match the capabilities of the USAF. What country poses a threat in the next 30 years that justifies 1,700+ JSFs?

The GAO article I have referenced indicates the maintenance costs for the JSF are increasing too. Once again, I backed up my claims.

What the F-16E can't satisfy, the F-22 can. In fact, one of the reasons the F-117 was retired so early is because of the capabilities of the F-22.

Last time I checked, the Army hasn't equipped Humvees with WiFi access. War doesn't change, never has, and only will once robots are fighting for us. Otherwise, it still takes a soldier aiming something (gun, laser designator, etc) to kill an insurgent.

Grow up? I'm a man pal, trust me. Now stop being a snot nosed brat and stick to facts.

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at March 12, 2008 04:09 PM

"So we are arguing about aquiring 180 F-22s because there is no apparent enemy that we could not deal with for the next 30 years. But purchasing 1,700 F-35s for at least three times the cost of a cheaper alternative is perfectly acceptable? You are talking about a savings of $85B between the F-35 and F-16E in unit cost (at a minimum). I think that would be more than enough to purchase the F-22s the Air Force is looking for.

And I'm the one smoking crack?"---DC2

Yeah you are. First of all, as I indicated in my last post, the F-16 blk 60 is not cheap. In fact, it's not much less than the F-35. And because it isn't nearly as survivable it will require a lot more effort to accomplish the same missions.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 12, 2008 03:50 PM

DC2,

Perhaps you are letting you bias mix with your ignorance? Especially when you are using the most irrelevant measure of cost, unit cost of the aircraft, as a measure. An F-35 by design will have a much lower MH/FH cost, basically operations and support cost. Especially in a combat situation where an airforce strike would have to commit ~3.5 times the dollar value in assets to achieve the same objective against a modern defense and would lose 10-20 times as many aircraft as an F-35A force. That doesn't even include the cost of operations where the F-16 would by far exceed the F-35 cost by virute of the fact that you would need 3 to 5 times the number of F-16s and support aircraft. The USAF has identified reducing operations and support cost as one of it's highest priorities.

BTW, mayber you should look into what an F-16 Blk 60 really cost. I assure you it's quite a bit more than 27m. Try about ~80 million each. So for 20% less you get only 20 to 30% of the capability of an F-35, raise the cost of the F-35B and F-35C, concede most of the export fighter market to the Typhoon, Rafale and Su-30. Doesn't seem like such a good idea does it?

DC2, there is a lot more to this that you seem to understand. Least of which is that the F-16E can't satisfy the requirements the F-35 is purpose buil to fulfill.

Oh and your stupid little swipe at the fact that I have time to post just shows how out of date your understanding of modern war really is. We don't live in trenches anymore and use snail mail. Grow up.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 12, 2008 02:42 PM

For those that want to look at the full GAO report just released on the F-35, here is the link:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08569t.pdf

Reference page 8 of this doc. It shows an average procurement cost per unit of $104M in 2008 from a cost of $69M in 2001.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at March 12, 2008 10:48 AM

DA here is your quote further proving my point about the lack of a need for the JSF purchase of 1,700+ aircraft.

"WHAT THREATS CURRENTLY EXIST THAT THE USAF IS UNPREPARED TO DEAL WITH? WHAT THREATS DO YOU THINK WILL EXIST OUT TO 30 YEARS THAT THE USAF FLIGHT PLAN IS INADEQUATE TO DEAL WITH. SUPPORT ANY RESPONSE WITH DATA."

So we are arguing about aquiring 180 F-22s because there is no apparent enemy that we could not deal with for the next 30 years. But purchasing 1,700 F-35s for at least three times the cost of a cheaper alternative is perfectly acceptable? You are talking about a savings of $85B between the F-35 and F-16E in unit cost (at a minimum). I think that would be more than enough to purchase the F-22s the Air Force is looking for.

And I'm the one smoking crack?

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at March 12, 2008 10:19 AM

DA,

Here is a good comment for you:

"The F-35 program of record for the US and UK held steady at 2,593 for four years, and those numbers were reaffirmed in the January 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. There were reports in early 2006 that the Air Force had an internal plan to ultimately reduce the number of joint strike fighters from 1,763 to somewhere between 1,000 and 1,200."

And the 1,763 number is a reduction from the originally planned 2,000+ the Air Force originally requested in 1996. That does not include reductions made by the Navy in the past. That also does not include other nations looking to back out of the program due to increased costs.

BTW, here is the link from my quote:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-program.htm

What you reference is always subject to change. There is currently debate among a number of the countries referenced from the docs about their commitments to the JSF.

I was referencing the F-16E as the Block 60 version. And it is cheaper than the JSF (even as it currently costs). Again, you are talking about a fixed price for an aircraft versus a price for an aircraft that has not been determined. The F-16E has a unit cost of $27M while the JSF is at least $80M (the 6 F-35s purchased this year had a unit cost of $200M).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16#Costs

So, everyone here can judge for themselves what insults we throw apply appropriately. I just find it amazing that someone currently in country has so much time on their hands that they can be all seeing, all knowing about everything the military is doing. I guess you are some sort of Geek Squad Rambo or something.

Trust me, I've dealt with you know it alls while I was in the military. Back when I was in we usually rimmed your coffee cups and gave you nice little blanket parties. For you, I might have left a nice little curly-que for you to chew on with that cup of joe.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at March 12, 2008 10:06 AM

"Please do not respond to this comment, I don't need your arrogant self-righteousness." ---DC2

Piss off. I respond anytime I feel like it and especially when facts are misunderstood.

"Again, 381 F-22s plus F-16Es make far more sense to me than the JSF purchases with fewer F-22s. Especially given the fact that when it is all said and done we may only be purchasing 1000 F-35s, further reducing our capabilities.

DC2"---DC2

Thanks again for proving you don't know what you are talking about. The USAF is not about to start buying F-16 Blk 60's in leu of F-35s and if by F-16E you are refering to the XL prototype you are really smoking crack. Neither option would be cheaper and at the platform level we are talking about a far less capable aircraft.

You are also crazy if you think the USAF will only buy 1000...

http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/ANNEX%20A%20Revision_April%202007.pdf

...slap yourself. The F-35A is going to be a very numerous multirole fighter and by far more capable in operationally relevant missions than any aircraft we have had prior. Moreover, with the risk of a conflict with a neer peer enemy very low, the DoD is likely to keep F-22 numbers at about 200 or less for the forseeable future.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 12, 2008 08:24 AM

DA,

Please do not respond to this comment, I don't need your arrogant self-righteousness.

On Military.com, there is an article indicating a GAO investigation of the JSF shows costs increasing dramatically for this aircraft. That means we will either pay more for the total airframes we are currently asking for or we will reduce the number of airframes we purchase. I would go for the latter based on previous experience with the F-22 and the B-2.

Gen. Moseley has indicated in the past that the JSF is the last priority on his list. The only service that truly needs this aircraft as a replacement is the USMC (along with those nations that need the B version). So the real question is what to do for them to fix their needs.

But the fact of the matter is the Air Force cannot afford two 5th generation fighters. We have a known cost for the F-22, and possible reductions due to additional airframe purchases. We can also offer this aircraft for export to help those nations offended by the cancellation of the JSF (obviously not at the same capabilities) to further reduce the cost. With JSF projected costs rising each year there is no telling how much we will eventually end up spending.

Again, 381 F-22s plus F-16Es make far more sense to me than the JSF purchases with fewer F-22s. Especially given the fact that when it is all said and done we may only be purchasing 1000 F-35s, further reducing our capabilities.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at March 12, 2008 07:12 AM

"DarthAmerica,

The problem is that "today" is irrelavent (there is nothing we can do about "today") what matters is 10, 20, 30 years from now...

If you think the rest of the world is just going to sit still while age and fatigue continue to reduce the number of F-15Cs we can keep in the air, you are VERY MUCH uniformed & sadly mistaken.

Posted by: pfcem"

...sigh. I can't believe this. YOU ARE CALLING ME UNINFORMED? Why because you have become an expert at web surfing and you think what you read here makes you some kind of an expert? Perhaps you have something a little more substanative to back up your post. What qualifications, military experience or data are you basing those conclusions on? Every point I've made, ALL OF THEM, has been supported by facts and data. The North Korea scenario for example. What do you have to offer to the discussion? Can you elaborate on any of these so-called threats 10 to 30 years from now that you think the USAF will be unprepared for. Also, what in the hell makes you think I believe the USAF is sitting still? pfcem I've referenced more changes to administration, doctrine and technology here than anyone. Look, you need to provide some support for your conclusions. Stop buying into media hype and armchair generals who barely even have a cursory understanding of this subject matter. For the third time in this thread I'll ask the following question.

WHAT THREATS CURRENTLY EXIST THAT THE USAF IS UNPREPARED TO DEAL WITH? WHAT THREATS DO YOU THINK WILL EXIST OUT TO 30 YEARS THAT THE USAF FLIGHT PLAN IS INADEQUATE TO DEAL WITH. SUPPORT ANY RESPONSE WITH DATA.

If you cant do that then please don't waste my time with one-liner responses or unsupported assertions.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 12, 2008 02:13 AM

DarthAmerica,

The problem is that "today" is irrelavent (there is nothing we can do about "today") what matters is 10, 20, 30 years from now...

If you think the rest of the world is just going to sit still while age and fatigue continue to reduce the number of F-15Cs we can keep in the air, you are VERY MUCH uniformed & sadly mistaken.

Posted by: pfcem at March 11, 2008 10:47 PM

"DarthAmerica,

Read you own comment concerning not being able to meet our global military obligations and deploy 400,000 troops to Iraq...

The same thing is true for the F-22. We will not be able to meet our global military obligations and deploy enough F-22s when/where/who ever the next "major" confict could be without A LOT more F-22 that are currently funded.

That is problem with BS of trying to tie the number of F-22s we need with any one specific conflict. Even if a conflict breaks out somewhere, we have other global military obligations that require F-22s that don't go away.

Posted by: pfcem"

Not quite but I understand the point you were trying to make and I respect the position. The difference is that the DoD enjoys massive advantages in airpower and specifically air superiority against ANY opponent right now.

All of our primary air to air fighters, F-22/15/18, would be almost certain to defeat any opponent today. We also have enoug of those platforms to cover our global commitements. If North Korea starts something, whats in the area right now is enough. If for some reason Taiwan and China get into it, what we can send right now is enough. If Europe had an air war with Russia and we had to help, our USAF could handle it. I could go on but don't just trust me, look at the threat matrix vs what we can deploy.

The Army and Marines on the other hand are tapped out. We cannot deploy in strength anywhere else AND run OIF right now. We just can't do it due to man power and equipment issues. It's a higher priority. During the post cold war years the Army was hit the hardest. Popular opinion at the time was that air power was the dominant form of warfare and large armies were obsolete. In fact during Kosovo, our own President flat out declared we would not commit large ground forces to the war and reliad almost exclusively on airpower.

All things considered, the USAF is in a much better position that the other services relative to their commitments. We can get by on 183-187 Raptors a lot longer than we can get by with the issues facing the other services.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 11, 2008 03:47 PM

DarthAmerica,

Read you own comment concerning not being able to meet our global military obligations and deploy 400,000 troops to Iraq...

The same thing is true for the F-22. We will not be able to meet our global military obligations and deploy enough F-22s when/where/who ever the next "major" confict could be without A LOT more F-22 that are currently funded.

That is problem with BS of trying to tie the number of F-22s we need with any one specific conflict. Even if a conflict breaks out somewhere, we have other global military obligations that require F-22s that don't go away.

Posted by: pfcem at March 11, 2008 03:17 PM

Boy, talk about a flamewar.

There's been some light here and there in the fog and heat; people have made some good points. Even the Euro- and US-bashing serves a purpose, I guess; better grudges are aired, than nursed.

Still, there's been some ugly, stupid sh*t here. Some of you folks need a different way to get out your ya-ya's.

Apart from that, one of the things that seems to be missing here is that directed energy weapons are going to be deployed over the next several decades. It's already started with AESA, whose DEW capabilities are an open secret. There have been pretty open discussions of using AESA for soft kills of missiles and UAVs. If that seems absurd, consider the fact that you can run a 50,000 volt stun gun off a 12V battery.

The tech is a little beyond me, partly because so much of it is still in the black world, but common sense and physics suggests that stealth isn't just about avoiding detection. In a world of RF DEW, refractive/absorbing materials like RAM would be a form of armor, like wearing rubber shoes and gloves when you're working with live wires.

Apart from that, the US hasn't fielded a new A2A or A2G system in decades. Developing the F-22 and -35 as next generation aircraft seems pretty much a no-brainer, especially if either of them can also be UCAVs. It's not so much that we need them now, or next year; it's more that we might need them in 10 years.

Apart from that, air wars are fought with mission packages and fleets of complementary types. Consider it a minimax strategy; if you want to cover all outcomes, you have to hedge your bets. The UK didn't stop building Hurricanes after the Spitfire proved out. The US didn't stop building Wildcats or P-40s after the Hellcat and P-51 proved out, and so on. We're probably keep on building F-15s, -16s, and -18s for a while, and, even after JSF, Europe will probably need to keep on building Typhoons, Rafales and Gripens.

You go to the track, you don't bet on one horse to win. You bet on 2 or 3, win, place, or show. That's how pretty much all nations have conducted air combat, since its inception. SHTF, you launch whatever you have.

My bet is, we're going to buy a little bit of everything. Especially after the US Congress and European parliaments get through making sausage.

Posted by: demophilus at March 11, 2008 03:10 PM

"ANd. I sure this will get things going, how much good would those 400,000 troops have done when they where not practicing counter insurgency practices. After they had been there a 12 - 18 months who would have replaced them?
This usnt aimed at you DC2 just a thought in general.

Posted by: NTV "

We could not meet our global military obligations and deploy 400,000 troops to Iraq. It's physically impossible under the current or 2003 force structure. And there would have been no replacements after a year or two of that unless we used the draft. Anyone who thinks Iraq would have been worth the political grief of a draft is doing drugs.

Our numbers were and are still right. We do not lack man power on the ground in Iraq. What we lacked was a good PR campaign to explain things to the voters. If people only knew how well things really went and are going we would not get even half of these nonsense OIF arguments.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 11, 2008 02:59 PM

"DA,

BTW, the last 4 F-22s were procured this year. Meaning, that it is at the end of it's production cycle. When we are having dialogue about funding to close down the production line, that would indicate to me that the cycle is almost done too.

But you know, I'm just ignorant and you are omnipotent (at least in your own mind)."---DC2

Is that why the F-22 is only in its second year of the multi-year procurement contract where we have about 113 deliveries and 35 in various states of production for a total of 148? Where are the other 25 moron?

Look nephew, if you are going to post, at least try to understand before you write things. Also, don't make silly a55 comments about Iraq you could not possibly understand...

"When the Army Chief stated they needed 400,000+ ground troops he was basically fired in lieu of a yes man.

Ignorant, yeah, right."

Yes you are. I'm here(Iraq) right now and we don't need 400,000 troops here and never have. This isn't a force on force fight. What we needed is a better PR angle to explain to the American people exactly what we were getting into. Militarily we are succeeding beyond our wildest immagination. But military methods are only one part of this war.

"You must not have read about the capabilities of the F-16E. Again, without stealth, it is just as capable and maneuverable as the JSF."

Yeah, actually I did. Thats why I know better than to make such a rediculous assertion. The F-35 boast far more advanced avionics than an F-16E or blk 60. It's got a size advantage as well that the F-16E can never match when it comes to avionics possibilities. It's also hilarious that you casually disregard the F-35s TITANIC situational awareness advantage and stealth capability in a stupid attempt to rationalize how these two COMPLETELY different aircraft could be the same. But I guess it should'nt matter than an F-16E would not fit the USMC, USN and allied requirements.

Piss off
-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 11, 2008 02:51 PM

> The USAF, DoD, Congress are leaving open the
> possibility of continued F-22 production. If
> they want to stop it, it will take about 500
> million dollars to do so.

Thats the funny thing. Some people are argueing that the DoD knows how many F-22's the AF needs, and thats all they should get. But if the DoD felt so strongly about their numbers why dont they fund the shutdown?

Posted by: NTV at March 11, 2008 02:44 PM

> When the Army Chief stated they needed
> 400,000+ ground troops he was basically fired
> in lieu of a yes man.

Actually he was basically fired a year before for doing the same thing, but worse, as Gen. Moseley is currentlly doing.

ANd. I sure this will get things going, how much good would those 400,000 troops have done when they where not practicing counter insurgency practices. After they had been there a 12 - 18 months who would have replaced them?
This usnt aimed at you DC2 just a thought in general.

Posted by: NTV at March 11, 2008 02:40 PM

"Uh, WTF?

I also did not fund shutting off my HBO after the three month period with dish network, but somehow, after I stopped paying, HBO went away... Hmmm.

What the hell is that even supposed to mean? You build no more fighters, the company shuts down production. The engineers go away, so do the workers, the floorspace, etc. You might keep some of the stuff, until they are destroyed, but that's it. Simple, easy.

Posted by: Vercingetorix"

This isn't quite like HBO I'm afraid. There are very specific things that have to be done prior to sutting down production of a combat aircraft. The USAF, DoD, Congress are leaving open the possibility of continued F-22 production. If they want to stop it, it will take about 500 million dollars to do so. So up until such a decision is made, your several dozen new F-22s are only a pen stroke away. Look into it. Personally, I think the USAF will get more eventually. Perhaps not enough to make 381 but something in between unless a threat worthy of those numbers manifest itself.

Anyway, as usual, here is a link supporting what I've been painstakingly trying to explain on this site...

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw021108p2.xml

Regards
-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 11, 2008 02:35 PM

DA,

BTW, the last 4 F-22s were procured this year. Meaning, that it is at the end of it's production cycle. When we are having dialogue about funding to close down the production line, that would indicate to me that the cycle is almost done too.

But you know, I'm just ignorant and you are omnipotent (at least in your own mind).

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at March 11, 2008 02:18 PM

DA,

As far as I know, the F-15s are still grounded. And the F-18s you mention are Canadian. Check on the squadrons in Alaska right now and how many aircraft they currently have. That is the real reason why they had drop tanks. If there were enough aircraft available, then a second pair of F-22s would have come in to relieve the original pair.

There were very intelligent people within our government back before we invaded Iraq that threw away 10 years of planning to reduce the number of soldiers needed to occupy that country. When the Army Chief stated they needed 400,000+ ground troops he was basically fired in lieu of a yes man.

Ignorant, yeah, right.

You must not have read about the capabilities of the F-16E. Again, without stealth, it is just as capable and maneuverable as the JSF.

One of the reasons the SDB was developed was to further increase the strike capabilities of the F-22. It can do the job as a lead attack aircraft. After that stealth does not matter and you can resort to the F-16E, F-15E, A-10 combination.

Get a life and stop being so arrogant. Maybe you will learn a thing or two.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at March 11, 2008 02:15 PM

"THEY DID NOT FUND THE SHUTTING DOWN OF THE LINE."

Uh, WTF?

I also did not fund shutting off my HBO after the three month period with dish network, but somehow, after I stopped paying, HBO went away... Hmmm.

What the hell is that even supposed to mean? You build no more fighters, the company shuts down production. The engineers go away, so do the workers, the floorspace, etc. You might keep some of the stuff, until they are destroyed, but that's it. Simple, easy.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at March 11, 2008 11:48 AM

"Darth,

So with your argument that all services ask for more than what is needed we should ascertain that the Army and Marines really do not need the additional troop numbers they are requesting?"---DC2

No, but you should look very carefully to make sure things are as they say. I guarantee you will find some things that are not justifiable.

"Based on your other posts in this blog string my suggestion that we do away with the JSF is correct. You have stated numerous times that our current F-15/F-16/F-18 aircraft can defeat any enemy brought against it. Therefore, we only need one 5th generation fighter as the tip of the spear during an armed confrontation. The F-22 is now at the end of its production cycle while the JSF has yet to be cleared for production."---DC2

This was a rediculous comment. I'll only address it out of boredom since it seems so few people have an actual understanding of how defense procurement and warfare works. THE F-22 is not at the end of it's cycle until 2011 and funding to shut down the line has been reappropriated to F-15 repairs.

"The F-22 is more maneurvable, more stealthy, and with upgrades currently planned more capable in compairson to the JSF. Why would you not want more of these at the expense of the JSF? Simply replace the JSF with the F-16E which is just as capable with the exception of stealth. The Navy can buy more F-18E/F and use the saved money for their real needs (ASW)."---DC2

Another rediculous comment. The F-22 is a pure air superiority fighter with limited ground attack capabilities and the JSF is a multirole/multiservice, long range strike fighter. Both are superior to each other in their intended roles. Heck an F/A-18E is superior to the F-22 as a strike fighter. If you think an F-16E is at all just as capable as an F-35 you are a completely ignorant on this subject matter.

"My proposition would not cost any more than what we are currently budgeting for future procurement. Yet it will recapitalize the Air Force inventory and give the generals all of the F-22s they need. The F-22s will still be augmented (in the Reserves and Guard) with the Golden F-15 just in case the F-22s ever became grounded."---DC2

You are again ignorant. Cost goes far beyond mere procurement cost. You need to learn about operations and support cost. Just to give you an idea, the F-35 has pre-contracted maintenance and support cost.

"You think we have enough F-22s? Pay attention to the Bears we are currently intercepting over Alaska. They are being escorted by F-22s with drop tanks. Reason being: the drop tanks give longer loiter time and prevent another pair of F-22s from having to come up and escort."---DC2

Yeah, you really are ignorant. An F-22 could have 10 drop tanks and a Bear would literally fly it out of gass if it wanted to hang aroung Alaskan airspace. More F-22's have nothing to do with these Cold War era ferret flights. There are plenty of F-15s and F/A-18s that could relive an escorting F-22.

"There simply aren't enough of these aircraft available now.

DC2"

Based on what? Your demonstrated misunderstanding of this subject mater?

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 11, 2008 03:20 AM

"Now there are fools (even within the Bush administration & the DOD) who think that deal was to be the end/last of the F-22 at 183."---pfcem

No, the fools are those of you who think that. The DoD recognizing that other higher defense priorities exist, funded only 183 Raptors through 2011 AND DID NOT FUND SHUTTING DOWN THE PRODUCTION LINES. AGAIN FOR THE DEAF DUMB AND BLIND. THEY DID NOT FUND THE SHUTTING DOWN OF THE LINE. Thats in case the new administration determines a need for more. Stop being an idiot. Especially after benefiting from an actual unbiased explanation.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 11, 2008 02:55 AM

DarthAmerica,

Who knew the truth would hurt so much...lol

The USAF has provided the proof that 381 is the minimum number they need & unlike so many ignorants, they did not pick some number out of their ass & then attempt to come up with some BS about how it is the "right" number (if they even bother to try & justify their number at all). The USAF conducted a VERY thorough study based on [WAY OVER SIMPLIFYING HERE] what they are being asked to do now & in the comming decades (& the state of their current forces) & the study indicated a minimum number of 381.

What REALLY pisses me off is the [insert derogatory term of choice] who can't even remember or go back even a few years to realize that the "deal" the Bush administration made was to provide a multiyear commitment to 183 F-22 through the FY09 budget (the last budget the Bush adminstration would have any part of) - leaving the total number to be eventually procured up to later administrations. Now there are fools (even within the Bush administration & the DOD) who think that deal was to be the end/last of the F-22 at 183.

Posted by: pfcem at March 10, 2008 11:21 PM

Johan, I believe I luv u! In a purely platonic sort of way, of course, but then again, it is the Y2K's, so WHAT-eva... ;)

This is awesome...

"Money may get printed on paper, but for a really worthless currency it would be hard to go past whatever institution issued you with an economics degree."

I cannot believe I missed it.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at March 10, 2008 09:19 PM

Darth,

So with your argument that all services ask for more than what is needed we should ascertain that the Army and Marines really do not need the additional troop numbers they are requesting?

Based on your other posts in this blog string my suggestion that we do away with the JSF is correct. You have stated numerous times that our current F-15/F-16/F-18 aircraft can defeat any enemy brought against it. Therefore, we only need one 5th generation fighter as the tip of the spear during an armed confrontation. The F-22 is now at the end of its production cycle while the JSF has yet to be cleared for production.

The F-22 is more maneurvable, more stealthy, and with upgrades currently planned more capable in compairson to the JSF. Why would you not want more of these at the expense of the JSF? Simply replace the JSF with the F-16E which is just as capable with the exception of stealth. The Navy can buy more F-18E/F and use the saved money for their real needs (ASW).

My proposition would not cost any more than what we are currently budgeting for future procurement. Yet it will recapitalize the Air Force inventory and give the generals all of the F-22s they need. The F-22s will still be augmented (in the Reserves and Guard) with the Golden F-15 just in case the F-22s ever became grounded.

You think we have enough F-22s? Pay attention to the Bears we are currently intercepting over Alaska. They are being escorted by F-22s with drop tanks. Reason being: the drop tanks give longer loiter time and prevent another pair of F-22s from having to come up and escort.

There simply aren't enough of these aircraft available now.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at March 10, 2008 08:05 PM

"Germany exports mote of its goods production than it consumes itself. It also consumes more foreign goods than domestic ones. It has set the record for goods exports once again (slightly ahead of PR China).

Canada has significantly less hidden trade barriers and bilateral trade-limiting treaties than the USA."

Which is not addressing the point - which was that the US is or is not a fairly open trader. To take German manufactures as an example, the US is one of it's most important markets. But US service companies face far more restrictions operating in Germany than the other way around, whether from Film subsidies and mandated local content laws to restrictions on financial services or the range of bariers to support German software over imported software.

Canada is a much better example but fisheries and lumber are two areas where Canada's rep is less than pristine. But the fact that Canada is a free trader does not make the case that the US is not. Again the very destinantion of Canadas exports gives the lie that assertion.

"Money is just paper and illusion. Someone insisted that others got rich because the USA bought their products. That is only partially true. The riches lie primarily in consumption and capital accumulation. Being a creditor is a very questionable form of wealth if the debtor is about to de-value the debt by inflation and exchange rate changes. Most importanty, you cannot consume what you lend away. The Chinese helped the Americans to consume, but they didn't consume as much as they deserved by their work."

I actually agree with you that China's policy of debt financing by way of bond buys makes little sense - but this is due to Chinese mercantilism - in particular an artificilly low currency and the practice of essenetialy forced savings. At the same time China worries about overheating the economy if the surplus were added to domestic money supply, whilst also worrying about loss of competive adavantage if the Yuan were to appreciate substantially. But China is only one part of the big imbalances casuing macro economic headaches around the world. The energy producers - OPEC plus Russia are roiling tha energy markets on the supply side and this also creates massive capital shifts. The original point stands - it is hardly US consumption per se that is driving these imbalances, and a falling Dollar is a natural by product of that. It does however put the Eurozone in a huge bind, the Bankers have little flexibility even as the Euro appreciates to the point where it threatens much of Europes export trade.

"There's no such thing like "every time" or "100% probability" in war. Being able to shoot first doesn't mean much as long as there are defensive capabilities like towed and free-flying decoys and ECM. AMRAAM's radar is tiny and weak plus the tech is known as threat since thirty years.
And if you knew as much about stealth as you claim in that last sentence you wouldn't be allowed to post here. We saw no high-tech war (high-tech vs. high-tech, not high-tech vs. Third World) for decades, so we don't know for certain. That and the general uncertainty in war maks all eggs in a basket (stealth/LO) a poor idea."

Christ you are obtuse:
a) I said First look, First Shot you moron - I did not say anything about Kill probability, and certainly nver claimed it to be 100%. But if you cannot see that getting the first shot and first look at an opponent confers a huge advantage you are too stupid to be posting here.
b)Also as has been pointed out to you repeatedly the F22 and F35 are not putting all their eggs in one stealth/LO basket. The F22, even without stealth, is probably the most capable jet fighter in existence, in terms of Energy, Speed, Manouverability in the high speed domain, Avionics, Armamnet, Man Macine Interface and it's capabilities to fight as part of a system. Stop making the point about stealth compromising other aspects of these 5th Generation fighters because they simply are not

"Food for thought: The Japanese had a 99:0 kill ratio against the Russians with their A6M over Manchuria. They were confident to have an excellent plane. Maneuverability could not be matched, after all. They delayed the development of a successor till first flight 1945."

I have no clear idea what point you are trying to make here - if it is that an excellent kill ratio for a model can induce disatrous complacency when the enemy catches up it would seem to be supporting the case for the F22 against those who claim that upgraded Teen series or 4.5 gen fighters are "good enough" given their past excellent records. Which I don't think is exactly what you want to say.

"NATO did not dare to strike low, it did not destroy the air defense system and it was forced to keep a very high ratio of support sorties throughout the war. In addition to that the overall military power ratio meant that the air war was nothing but a rape."

What will it take to get through your thick head that an Air defense system that manages a single shootdown in thousands of sorties and cannot prevent or even impede any targets actually being struck is not actually doing it's job?

"You need to badly misunderstand the purpose of air defenses as "kill, kill, kill" to consider the Serbian air defenses as defeated. The air defense did its job well."

You badly misunderstand the purpose of an air campaign if you think it's primary purpose is to engage and destroy the ADS.

"And you need to stop believing all DOD propaganda.
Thin beams, processing and frequency hopping is no cure-all. The stuff is known for 15 years and won't be without counter-technolgoy for long."

An entirely evidence free based assertion.

The rest of your post can be summed up as If not American is good, if american is crap. So Radar in an AWACS is a turkey, but other radars are not. ECM works without penalty when deployed by Russians but is solely a liability when deployed by Americans. The mind rotting effects of anti-americansim are perfectly exemplified by the idiocies you are prepared to commit to the ether. The stuff about IRST is written as if you had no idea about the significant range limitations as well as the problem of searching large volumes of air space using IR methods, and not least the fairly severe problems that IR over long distances encounters with obscurants and humidity. It also fails to aknowledge that the F22 has some of the most significant IR signature reduction outside of the A10 or B2.

But hey if you want to beleive that the F22 is a turkey and make a buffoon of yourself trying to prove it, be my guest.

Posted by: Johan W at March 10, 2008 08:03 PM

"DarthAmerica,

The USAF has already determined (in a MUCH more thorough study than you could possibly conceive) that 381 is the MINIMUM number they NEED.

It is the responsibility of anyone who claims any smaller number will do to prove their number." ---pfcem

First of all you have no idea what I can conceive or how much I know about this subject matter or DoD procurement in general. Here is a hint for you. The USAF, like the USN, U.S. Army and USMC all have inconceivable thorough studies claiming the sky will fall if they don't get what they want.(yawn) I deal with these things quite often. More often than not these "studies" are by no means objective or unbiased. The services often lie and twist the truth or blatantly misrepresent facts to secure funding. I know this from direct experience.

The burden is not on me or anyone else to prove the USAF "studies" wrong. I'm not the one asking for more Raptors. You have it twisted. It's the USAF that wants more Raptors. Planes that get paid for out of my pocket with my money that I earn by risking my life everyday. The USAF has to convince ME and my elected officials who appoint the civilian leadership of the DoD who ultimately decide which most important priority is the most important. So far the USAF has not done that.

Never forget that fundamental principle. I can go on all day and night about things that were never procured that if we didn't have them the world would end. This is nothing new unless you only recently started paying attention to these types of things AND misunderstand it at that.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 10, 2008 04:56 PM

DarthAmerica,

The USAF has already determined (in a MUCH more thorough study than you could possibly conceive) that 381 is the MINIMUM number they NEED.

It is the responsibility of anyone who claims any smaller number will do to prove their number.

Posted by: pfcem at March 10, 2008 04:44 PM

Sven Ortmann,

Nobody is suggesting unlimited defense spending.

If fact I have not seen/read/heard of anyone seriously suggesting more that a 20% increase over what we are spending now (which would STILL put our defense spending at only ~5% of our GDP).

Just as an example (inflation along will increase future budgets), the FY09 budget allocated $515.4 billion to defense with $143.8 billion of that for the USAF. Procuring 20 F-22 would add (or require reallocation) only ~$3 billion - that is only ~0.06% increase for the total defense budget & only a ~2% increase for the USAF budget.

Try looking at it while ignoring the billions. A $3,100 overall budget with $515.40 allocated to defense with $143.80 of the $515.40 for the Air Force increased by just $3.00 for 20 of the most important items in the entire budget...

Posted by: pfcem at March 10, 2008 04:36 PM

"Agreed on at least this point even if we disagree on how much exactly "stealth" it takes."

Indeed. Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to the open-24 hours-a-day and manned by oppressed immigrants, good-old fashioned American supermarket and stock up on canned goods to wait out the apocalypse. :)

Posted by: Vercingetorix at March 10, 2008 04:14 PM

"The bottom line is we need air dominance over everyone else, including Jehovah, Allah, Zeus, and JC and the boys. And stealth is vital to it."---Vercingetorix

Agreed on at least this point even if we disagree on how much exactly "stealth" it takes.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 10, 2008 03:55 PM

Ortmann,

If you want to learn about EU's true expeditionary capabilities. Start reading here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Battlegroups

Be sure to look through the source documents and not just the wiki summary. Don't let pride get the better part of your judgement. If you do, you would be falling into a typical European pitfall that has help Europe back for over two centuries and cost you millions of dead.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 10, 2008 03:51 PM

"Vercingetorix and DarthAmerica have a serious disconnect with reality and lack basic knowledge of warfare."

Muthaf#$@%r. I've fired more weapon systems than you can name off a list, chief. I've deployed to more countries than you've gone on your six-week euro (socialist!) vacation plans. I've drank with my Marines, sailors, soldiers, jet-jockeys, and Japanese, Korean, Philipino, Thai, Aussie, SAS, legion etrangere, and Canuckistani soldiers than are good for my heart and liver. My education in the Marine corps costs millions; one school alone cost half a million in chinese-backed bearer-bonded taxpayer green, thank you very much. And I can still throw down my exorbitant student loans to match sheep skin for sheep skin with the frat boys.

So don't get all huffy because we are picking apart your claims, Franz. DA and I disagree loudly and violently on virtually every point, hell, in this thread alone, but we still know what we are talking about.

The bottom line is we need air dominance over everyone else, including Jehovah, Allah, Zeus, and JC and the boys. And stealth is vital to it.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at March 10, 2008 03:50 PM

"Seriously - some persons here have absolutely no clue about security policy and warfare whatsoever. They just believe the propaganda/marketing.

Never look around some public relations messages, never assume that foreigners might be smart as well, never recognize that your military is so useless and overpaid that it's repeatedly being defeated by light infantry forces."

No clue huh?...

http://www.dropshots.com/DarthAmerica#date/2008-03-09/23:51:02

...and who is defeating us again? I must have missed that battle which is a bit perplexing considering I've been present for quite a few of them. They usually go like this. They shoot at or try to blow some of us up once and a while and completely miss. Every blue moon they get lucky and one of us falls. Our response kills 10 to 20 times more of them. I think I really don't think I mind that too much. In fact I prefer "losing" if this is what losing is.

Ortmann, try to be reasonable and see that you may not know as much as you think you do. Take advantage of a chance to learn.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 10, 2008 03:44 PM

One more thing about EU militaries. They are awesome at their intended roles of DEFENDING their respective home countries from external non-US threats unless we are talking about terrorism or ballistic/cruise missiles. This was the purpose behind their post WW II organization.

After the end of the USSR, Europe had no traditional external threats of invasion and did not seriously pursue a policy to build an expeditionary military and certainly not one with a EU based Unity of Command. The EU focused instead on it's economic power base.

The UK and France are SOMEWHAT of an exception and maintained limited power projection capability. But it was definitely limited in scope. The UK had and still has it's carrier programs and the French maintain basing in areas they consider important. Just as a measure of how limited though, look at the current capability of the French Carrier Fleet or the general NATO commitement to Afghanistan.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 10, 2008 03:36 PM

OK, this is ridiculous.

Vercingetorix and DarthAmerica have a serious disconnect with reality and lack basic knowledge of warfare.

Go, look your propaganda infos on American way of war, I won't bother anymore.

I've encountered some of the most stereotypical dumb Americans imaginable here.

I copied some good quotes for the jokes section of some forums from here.

Seriously - some persons here have absolutely no clue about security policy and warfare whatsoever. They just believe the propaganda/marketing.

Never look around some public relations messages, never assume that foreigners might be smart as well, never recognize that your military is so useless and overpaid that it's repeatedly being defeated by light infantry forces.

Go on if you want to disconnect from Europe.
The USA is causing more troubles for Europe than it has uses with its incredible ignorance and lack of respect for other nations.

Sleep well in your dreamland, guys. Reality will wake you up in time.

Finally; call me anti-American and be satisfied to have missed the point yet again.

Posted by: Sven Ortmann at March 10, 2008 03:31 PM

"Will wonders never cease. My arch-enemy of all things in all the world, DA ;), takes down the Euroweenie for me. Sigh. Think I'll go fishing."

Muuuuuhahahaha...;) I like the EU militaries. I've worked with a lot of them and overall I'm impressed. However, they aren't very well prepared for expeditionary warfare with units larger than battalion size independently and brigade sized when operating in coalitions. Anything larger and they need US logistical and C4ISR support to do it. Now I think the last 20 years have not passed by unnoticed by lots of EU leadership and they are taking some steps to improve their power projection capabilities. But the EU is hamstrung by politics and nationalism and I have to admit the US and Russia have a part to play in that. But who can blame either when Europe has been the source of two World Wars killing close to 100 million people! Ouch.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 10, 2008 03:10 PM

"Your claim is laughable. The militaries of Europe can easily send half a million men to places like that. We just